IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
W. P. No. 32232/98 (RES PIL GM)
Between:
1.
G. K. Govinda Rao
161, 36 A Cross
Jayanagar 7th Block
Bangalore 560 082
2. Environment
Support Group
36, Reservoir Road
Basavanagudi
Bangalore 560 004
Represented by its Co-ordinator
Mr. Leo F. Saldanha ………..Petitioners
And:
State of Karnataka
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore 560 001
Represented by its Chief Secretary ……….Respondents
1.
K. Bhujanga
S/o S. J. Krishna Murthy
Aged about 34 years
No. 570, 6th Main
3rd Block, HBR Layout
Bangalore 560 084
2.
Sampath
S/o Late Appanna Iyengar
Aged about 63 years
No. 354, 7th Cross
Rajmahal Vilas Extension
Bangalore 560 080
3.
N. Richard
S/o Late A. P. Richard
Aged about 48 years
No. 1978/1
Hennur Main Road
Kacharkanahalli
Bangalore – 560 084 …………Impleading Applicants
Rejoinder/Objection Statement filed by the Second Petitioner to IA No. in the aforesaid Writ Petition
1. First
and foremost the petitioner wishes to submit to this Hon’ble Court that the
Impleading Applicants, in so approaching the Court in the public interest, seem
to have completely missed the point being agitated here. For as has been stated in the Impleading
Application of the petitioner, the matter being agitated is the very basis of
the de-notification of the Cubbon Park, which the Petitioner believes was
conducted in a wholly unconstitutional manner and against the wider public
interest. Such being the case, and
notwithstanding the genuine public cause the Impleading Applicants wish to
represent here, the Petitioner strongly contests the basis of the statement in
para 6 of the IA wherein it is stated that: “The applicants submit that the
said land at no point forms part of the Cubbon Park”. To highlight that the said LRDE area was handed over by the
Defense authorities to the State of Karnataka only for the purposes of
maintaining as a “park, planetarium, etc.” and not for any other purpose
whatsoever, including public utilities, the Petitioner presents a letter in
clarification written by Dr. Raja Ramanna, former Defense Minister, in Deccan
Herald, 14 November 1998, as Annexure A.
2. A
Water Reservoir is a very huge and complicated facility involving laying of a
vast network of pipes both for inflow and outflow of water. Further, it involves various attendant
facilities such as a power house, office and administrative block, maintenance
facilities, etc. Considering the
extensive nature of such a facility, even if the area sought for is only 70 x
100 sq. metres as claimed, the fact remains that pending the adjudication of
the de-notification presently challenged, no construction, of whatever extent
can be termed legal, and in the public interest, even when the claimed purpose
is that of providing potable water.
3. Especially
considering the extensive facilities that are needed in maintaining a water
reservoir, even if it is of a submerged type, the fact remains that the LRDE
portion of Cubbon Park will suffer irreversibly, and would, if allowed, lead to
the destruction of all the trees in the area.
It may also be pointed out at this juncture, that such piecemeal
extraction of Cubbon Park’s area for other purposes than the maintenance as a
Park, in the LRDE area, has already rendered a vast stretch being occupied for
an office block of the Bangalore Metropolitan Regional Development Authority, a
musical fountain, parking lots, etc. In
such view, if a water reservoir were also allowed, the LRDE portion of Cubbon
Park would be a mass of construction with public utilities and office
blocks. This would not only violate the
law, but would also be counter-productive as far as the public interest is
concerned.
4. The
BWSSB has repeatedly encroached on various parks and open spaces across the
city to develop water reservoirs, whilst sub-letting or developing its own
designated areas for purposes other than so allowed. A graphic example of this is the Basava Bhavan, which is property
originally assigned to BWSSB for developing as a Water Reservoir, where now
stands a office block and a kalyana mantap.
Whilst such being the case, it is probable that in time, if the LRDE
space is allowed for a water reservoir, then it may most probably be developed
into an altogether different purpose.
5. If
indeed a water reservoir is needed to augment the city’s water supplies, then a
more ideal location would be a portion of the present Bangalore Golf Club,
which serves no public purpose, but merely the recreational activity of a few
elite members of the Bangalore Gold Association. Considering that the Club has already set aside a portion of this
property, which rests with the State of Karnataka, for the purposes of a sewage
water treatment plant, the same area may be extended to provide BWSSB for
developing the water reservoir. If this
is considered difficult due to problems of space, than another alternative in
an equally elevated region of High Grounds is the Bangalore Turf Club. This area is once more a vast expanse, being
put for the exclusive benefit of speculators, and it is difficult to see why a
portion of this land cannot be used for developing the said water reservoir in
the public interest.
6. Finally,
keeping in view the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M. I.
Builders Pvt. Ltd vs. Radhey Shyam Sahu and others [1994 (4) SCALE], the Bench
consisting of S. B. Majumdar and D. P. Wadhwa, JJ. in their judgement dated 26
July 1999 have held that it is unconstitutional and against the wider public
interest to allow for the development of any sort of construction that violates
the principles laid down in the relevant acts protecting Parks and Open
Spaces. Laying down the Public Trust
Doctrine as fundamental to offering protection to such Public Spaces, the Court
even went to the extent of ordering demolition of an underground Shopping
Complex that had been built unconstitutionally in the Jhandelwala Park of
Lucknow, a park as historical and equal in ecological importance to Lucknow, as
Cubbon Park is to Bangalore. In view of
this judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the public interest cause raised
by the Impleading Applicants is wholly unconstitutional.
Wherefore, the Petitioner
respectfully prays this Hon’ble Court to be pleased to reject the Impleading
Application.
Bangalore Second
Petitioner
Date:
Verification:
Verified at Bangalore on
this the 20th day of September 1999 that the contents of this
objection/rejoinder statement are true to the best of my knowledge, belief and
information.
Second
Petitioner